Holland is a democratic kingdom. Democracy was born there in the sixteenth century, and is still unquestionably thriving. But democracy was born in peculiar circumstances; it was reared by men whose ideas of democracy differed, for, while the leaders of the nation consistently worked for popular government, they did not all or always mean exactly the same thing by the word 'people,' and hence did not aim at exactly the same goal. The French Revolution of the eighteenth century upset the outward form of the Dutch Commonwealth; it did away with ancient and more or less obsolete fetters, which proved no longer strong enough to support the growth of political life, though still sufficiently strong to hinder it. It could do nothing for, and add nothing to, the profound love of liberty and the passion for independence which are dearer to every Dutchman than life itself, but it could and did extend the blessing of political and religious freedom to a greater number of people. Love of liberty brought about the disestablishment of the Church, and love of toleration made Holland follow this measure in the fifties by the emancipation of the Roman Catholics.

Every one who is acquainted with Dutch history understands that these two things have as much meaning for Dutch political as for Dutch religious life. But side by side with religious and political freedom came also economic freedom. The guilds were abolished, and so the bonds by which the handicrafts had been prevented from moving with the movements of the times, and thus of living a healthy life, were swept away. The social revolution acted like the doctor who enters a close and stuffy sick-room and throws open the windows and door, so that the invalid may get the very first necessity of life--fresh air. So it was with a sigh of relief that the Dutch--and not they alone--said, 'No State interference in matters of trade and industry, let us keep open the windows and doors!'

No doctor, however, will compel his patient to live in a constant draught, winter and summer, since upon one occasion a liberal admission of fresh air was necessary to save that patient's life. There can be no doubt that during the nineteenth century the doors and windows were kept open rather too long. The great employers of labour were strong enough to stand the draught, for centuries of prosperity had made them a powerful class; but their men had no such advantages, and they were worse off when steam power brought about another revolution by creating the so-called system of 'capitalistic production' and the growth of the large industries. Hence it comes about that Holland, like all civilized countries, is now trying to find out how far the windows and the doors must be closed, so as to allow the men to live as well as the masters. This, in few words, characterizes Dutch party politics from the social and economic side.

Political parties in the Netherlands obviously differ not only in their views upon political, religious, and economic issues, but also as to the degree of precedence to be allowed to each of these three departments of national life and thought. The Liberals say, "Politics first; if these are sound and religion and commerce are free, everything will be right." The Social Democrats reply, "Politics only concern us as a means of obtaining real and substantial economic liberty and material equality; religion does not affect us at all, and certainly does not help to solve the practical problems of human life." Differing from both, the Anti-Revolutionists assert, "Whosoever leaves the firm ground of God's Word, the Holy Scriptures, as the only true basis for public and private action, can have neither sound politics nor sound economics." The Roman Catholics also put religion on the first plane, but they are in the most difficult position of all. They are a minority, even a decreasing minority, and know perfectly well that they will never be a majority; so they recognize that in the first place they must try to be good Dutchmen, faithful, loyal citizens of the State, while in the second place they must not give up one single ideal of their Church. Their faith in the eternal existence of their ecclesiastic system enables them on the one hand to be patient and to wait, just as on the other hand it teaches them not to sit still, but to act, to work, either by themselves or conjointly with any party that may assist them to realize, or even to get nearer to, any of their religious ideals.

When the Liberals, in the middle of the nineteenth century, did an act of great toleration by emancipating the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestants threw over the Liberal Cabinet, and the Liberal leader, Thorbecke, was returned to Parliament by the most Catholic town of Holland, Maestricht, in Limburg. But afterwards the Anti-Revolutionists raised the cry for denominational education, and the Dutch Liberals were rather sore to find their former friends join their antagonists. The soreness was in consequence of a miscalculation; the Liberals had forgotten that in becoming emancipated the Roman Catholics did not become Liberals, but remained Roman Catholics as before, faithful to their creed, and to their ideals, even at the cost of political friendship.

The common ground upon which Anti-Revolutionists and Roman Catholics meet is the conviction that religion must in everything be the starting-point. The Anti-Revolutionists take the Scriptures as such; the Roman Catholics accept the Pope's decisions, given ex cathedrÂ, as inspired by the Holy Spirit and transmitted to him by Conclaves and Councils. For the rest, Rome's creed is sheer idolatry to the Anti-Revolutionist Protestants, whereas Rome looks upon ail Protestants as lost heretics. But both, again, consider such Protestants--the so-called 'Moderns'--who reject the Trinity, the miracles, the Divine origin of the Bible, and certain other dogmas, as simple atheists, and as most 'Moderns' are Liberals, and vice-versÂ, they proclaim the Liberal State to be an atheistic State.

Strictly speaking, there is really no Conservative party in Holland, for it ceased to exist in the beginning of the seventies. After Thorbecke gave Holland the Liberal constitution of 1848, the Conservatives tried for a time to obstruct the country's political development, but ultimately they gave up the attempt, and their best and ablest men, Mr. J. Heemsherk Azn and Earl C. Th. van Lynden van Sandenburg, headed Liberal Cabinets as men professing very moderately progressive views, yet openly opposed to the restoration of the somewhat autocratic and aristocratic conditions which prevailed before 1848 in consequence of the reaction against the chaotic era of the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte. Yet though there is no Conservative party in Holland, there are, none the less, Conservatives in every party.

The Liberal party counts three sections, the Old Liberals, the Radico-Liberals, and the Liberal Democrats. The Old Liberals adhere to Thorbecke's principles, and maintain that it is the primary business of a Liberal State to promote individuality and to create on this basis the general conditions by which social development can be achieved. According to them the State has no right to interfere in everything, to cure everything, to provide everything, as the collectivist would like; on the contrary, its first duty is abstinence--simply to preserve a fair field and to show no favour. These Old Liberals, in fact, regard the State as a legal corporation which exists merely to administer justice and to guard the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Their political friends and next-of-kin are the Radico-Liberals of the 'Liberal Union,' who form, for the present, the bulk of the party. They admit the value of individual energy and enterprise, and hold that unlimited scope must be allowed to these; they even contend that, on the whole, the system of unfettered individualism proved to be more in the workman's favour than the opposite; but they also admit that this condition is not such as it might and ought to be, and in consequence they do not object to social legislation wherever individual efforts fail.

The advanced Liberal Democrats ('de Vryzinnige Democraten') differ fundamentally from both the foregoing parties. They give prominence to political rights and franchises, and hence fall foul of a leading clause (clause 80) of the constitution, which confers electoral powers upon only such adult male inhabitants as 'possess characteristics of capability and prosperity.' The members of the 'Liberal Union' admit that the requirement of a certain measure of prosperity withholds from numbers of citizens the right to influence their country's affairs by their votes. They admit also that the constitution ought to be altered on this point, but they doubt whether it is sound practical politics to put this item in the foreground. They say, in effect, 'We can quite well provide the country with adequate social legislation either with or without the help of the disfranchised section of the population, for if we propose measures dealing with social problems, even the more Conservative amongst us will not object, and those measures will come on the statute book. But there is not the slightest chance that we shall ever get the Old Liberals to give the franchise to poor and destitute people, who have no financial stake whatever in the country. So by insisting upon adult suffrage you merely postpone social legislation indefinitely. Moreover, the object of our social legislation can only be to make the poorer class more capable and more prosperous, and as soon as that end is gained they get the franchise automatically, without any change of the constitution.' To this the Liberal Democrats reply: 'Social legislation must not be regarded as a grudgingly admitted necessity, it is the paramount duty of the State, and as social legislation principally affects those who are now disfranchised, it is only just to begin by affording them the opportunity of expressing their opinions upon the subject, and hence to alter the constitution so as to give them votes, for they know best what they want.'

The Liberal Democrats deny, in fact, that the State can make any laws that do not affect the social life as well as the legal position of its citizens, and contend that those who hold that natural laws rule the social relations of man with man, and that on this ground the State ought to refrain from interference, merely allow the State to protect the stronger against the weaker classes, whereas its duty is the contrary. Positive interference in social matters is, according to them, the State's duty, and it may only refrain when the free operation of social forces creates no conditions or relationships which offend modern ideas of justice and equity. The Democrats have, unquestionably, by their secession, greatly crippled the strength of the Liberal party, and it will be long before the younger generation of Liberals can take the places thus vacated and a rejuvenated and unanimous party can issue from the present dissensions.

The only other political party in Holland who do not accept religion as the one safe starting-point for politics are the Social Democrats. When the German Socialists of the school of Marx discovered how the sudden development of steam and machinery was followed by a vast amount of distress amongst the labouring classes, affecting also such of the lower middle class as principally traded with workpeople, they at once jumped at the conclusion that the same thing was bound to go on for ever. Perhaps it was with a feeling of despair, therefore, that the father of Dutch Social Democracy, F. Domela Nieuwenhuys, gradually drifted into anarchism, or, as he prefers to call it, Free Socialism, and finally abandoned all political action. The younger generation, led by F. van der Goes, H. van Kol, and, last but not least, P. J. Troelstra, still vigorously carry on the fray, however, and a very considerable number of Dutch workmen follow them. Their ambition is to conquer political power in Holland, and as soon as they have it to revolutionize, not the country, but the statute-book, in such a manner that they may acquire the economic power as well. Of course, they wish to abolish individual property in all the means of production, and to make the State the owner of all these; and it is their hope that a general love for the commonwealth, and zeal for the general welfare of all, may take the place of the present egotism and sordid pursuit of wealth.

Parliament House at the Hague. View from the Great Lake.
Parliament House at the Hague. View from the Great Lake.

The Anti-Revolutionists also have their Conservatives and Progressives. Dr. Kuyper always speaks of a 'Left' and a 'Right' wing of his party, and as the Conservative 'Right' is largely composed of the members of the Dutch nobility, he once sneeringly called this fraction 'the men with the double names.' Their proper title is 'Free Anti-Revolutionists,' and their leader, Jhr. A.F. de Savornin Lohman, who in 1888, with Baron Ae. Mackay (Lord Reay's cousin), led the first Anti-Revolutionist-Catholic majority in the Second Chamber of the States-General.

The third faction is headed by Dr. Bronsveld, and is called the 'Christian Historicals,' who differ on one great principle from the two others, inasmuch as they seek the re-establishment of the Netherlands Hervormde Kerk as State Church.

But, however much they differ in practical measures, their common ground is the recognition of the Holy Scriptures as the only right basis for statesmanship, and their conviction that the present modern State is merely a passing, non-Dutch consequence of the French Revolution and its disastrous teachings. They all agree that the Netherlands should be governed according to the principles that made Holland great and powerful ever since the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Dr. Kuyper is fully convinced that the French Revolution thrust Holland off its historical line of development, and he wants to return, as near as possible, to the point reached before that event, or, at any rate, to lead the State forward in the old direction.

All Anti-Revolutionists hold that their first civic duty is obedience to God;--if conscience requires resistance to the authorities, resist them, whatever you may suffer. At the same time they eschew clericalism and object to every form of State Church. Hence one of their chief antipathies is clause 171 of the constitution, which continues in the same way as before the disestablishment of the Church the payments by the Exchequer to various clergymen of all denominations. In opposition to this they demand entire and absolute liberty and equality for all churches and confessions, and, theoretically, admit that one can be a member of their party without being of their creed. With regard to education, they do not desire to substitute denominational State schools for the present neutral ones, but they object that at present the State compels parents, who desire religious schools for their children, not only to find all necessary money for these 'free schools,' but to contribute in addition to the school taxes, to the advantage of such parents as hold that secular and religious education are better disconnected, since religious education must needs be dogmatical and sectarian, and that the churches and not the State should look to this, whereas school education can quite well be given without reference to religion at all.

The Anti-Revolutionist position, on the other hand, is that it is not the State's duty to provide school or any other education, all education being a matter of private concern for the individual family, and not a public business at all; though they allow that where parents are unable to maintain them schools may be erected by the taxpayers' money. They also deprecate legislation against intemperance, immorality, and prostitution, because they think such laws do not remove the evils themselves, but merely attack their visible signs, and relieve moral trespassers of part of their responsibility by protecting them against certain consequences of their acts. They are opposed to the legal and compulsory observance of the Sabbath, holding this to be an affair of the churches and of individuals; but they support laws to compel employers to allow their men a sufficient weekly rest on Sundays. They admit a limited State interference in social matters, but contend that it must not discourage individual effort, or create a host of officials, inspectors, and controllers. The franchise must, according to them, never enable one section of the nation to supersede the other by sheer force of numbers; they do not admit that the majority System is the ultimate and only criterion of legality and justice; moreover, the family being the unit from which the commonwealth has grown into existence, they contend that heads of families are the natural electors. Where the Old Liberals say that the financial test is the right one for voters, the Anti-Revolutionists hold that no one has a real stake in the country who has not a family and knows nothing of the responsibilities involved thereby. Dr. Kuyper is the democratic leader of what he calls, in classical but antiquated Dutch, the 'Kleine luyden' (the 'Little people') amongst the Anti-Revolutionists. He knows that the 'double-named' Free Anti-Revolutionists have little sympathy with his social programme, but this does not matter, since they are perfectly well aware of the fact that they owe everything, as far as political power goes, to the 'Little people.'

Finally, there is the Left Wing of the Roman Catholic party, who derive their social convictions from Pope Leo's Encyclica 'Rerum Novarum,' which affords a great many points upon which joint action is possible, for Leo XIII. is often called in Holland 'the Workmen's Pope.' Both Anti-Revolutionists and Roman Catholics entertain entirely different political ideals, but they agree upon this, that the modern Liberal State is not really neutral in religions matters, but is 'Modern Protestant,' and 'Modern' Protestantism spells atheism in their eyes; and both regard a weak and fragile Christian as a better citizen than the best atheist or agnostic. For this reason they are combined in hostility to the existing System of elementary education, which they suspect of an atheistic tendency. These two questions, religion and the schools, virtually exhaust the vital points of agreement between the Anti-Revolutionists and the Roman Catholics, though in an emergency they might possibly unite on social legislation or some mild form of Protection. The latter would, however, have to be very mild indeed, for Dr. Kuyper is a Free Trader, and the 'Little people' like cheap bread just as well as other folk. For Holland it might be a matter of great importance if progressive social legislation became Kuyper's chief work.

There is no doubt a great drawback in this mixing up by ail parties of politics and religion. Kuyper, the Calvinist; Schaepman, the Catholic; Drucker, Treub, and Molengraaf, the Liberal Democrats; Goeman Borgesius, the man of the 'Liberal Union;' and Troelstra, the Socialist, all have many common ideas on social questions, although they may differ in principles and seek different aims. Each of them, however, has Conservative opponents in his own party, and there is just a possibility that the next few years may bring about not only a healthy measure of social development, but also a much-desired readjustment of parties, on non-theological, undogmatical lines.

Chapter XVIII